There’s a remarkable news story coming out of Erie, Illinois. A wise and courageous school board has voted to remove a homosexuality-affirming picture book titled The Family Book from its elementary school library. Further, it has voted to remove all materials created by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), a partisan advocacy group committed to using public schools, including elementary schools, to advance their moral, political, and ontological beliefs. 

The Family Book was written by homosexual author Todd Parr and recommended by GLSEN. The “Alternatives to Marriage Project” highly recommends The Family Book for managing “both to naturalize and celebrate family diversity” and describes it as a favorite “among the toddler set.” “Naturalize” seems an ironic choice of words to describe a book that includes types of “parental” relationships that are unnatural and, by design, sterile. The “Alternatives to Marriage Project”  is a group committed to “equality and fairness” for “same sex couples and those in relationships of more than two people.”

Treating homosexuality and heterosexuality as equivalent is not a neutral position

Treating homosexuality as equivalent to heterosexuality does not reflect a neutral ideological position. Treating homosexuality as equivalent to heterosexuality is a leftist position. Believing that homosexuality and heterosexuality are morally and ontologically equivalent is a controversial, unproven belief that public schools — particularly elementary schools — have no ethical right or obligation to promulgate.

Leftists try to make the case that including books that treat homosexuality positively reflects ideological neutrality and balance since there are already so many books that depict heterosexuality positively. But that argument is based on prior acceptance of yet another Leftist assumption, which is that homosexuality is simply the flip side of the sexuality coin. It’s not. Homosexuality is a disordering of the sexual impulse.

Humans were quite obviously created anatomically and biologically as heterosexual beings. Using any objective criteria, all humans are heterosexual.  There exists no argument about the morality of heterosexual acts per se, so the number of books in a library that depict heterosexuality positively is irrelevant to any discussion of the appropriateness of including a book that depicts homosexuality positively. Publicly funded schools have no right to make available to young children ideas and images that many believe are profoundly immoral.

What neutrality or true diversity of opinions would look like in public schools

A neutral position would take one of two forms: Neutrality on topics involving homosexuality can be demonstrated by simply not addressing it at all; or neutrality can be demonstrated by including picture books that affirm homosexuality and picture books that portray homosexuality as immoral and destructive. Of course, neither side of the debate is going to like the second option.

Further, the opposite of a homosexuality-affirming book is not a heterosexuality-affirming book. The opposite of a homosexuality-affirming story would be a story that is critical of homosexuality. A picture book that dissents from the view that homosexual-led familes are equivalent to heterosexual-led families is not a book that depicts heterosexual-led families positively. A picture book that offers a dissenting view from one that positively depicts homosexual-led family structures would be one that negatively depicts homosexual-led family structures.

Who really censors?

The use of the terms “book banning” and “censorship” represents yet another “tool” in the bulging toolbox of manipulative and hypocritical strategies used by those who have lost their moral compasses and seek to pervert the moral compasses of other people’s children in public schools. Teachers make choices all the time about what books should be purchased with limited resources. And particularly in elementary schools, the criteria used to determine book choices include considerations of age-appropriateness. Although leftwing extremists may think picture books that affirm homosexual family structures are appropriate, they, leftist ideologues, are not the ultimate arbiters of appropriateness.

Charges of censorship are leveled at only conservatives. When, for example, high school teachers refuse to have their students study any resources on the topic of homosexuality written by conservative scholars while at the same time having them read novels, plays, or articles that espouse liberal ideas, we rarely if ever hear them called censors.

I’m speculating here, but I doubt whether any school district that chose not to purchase a picture book that positively depicted polyamorous families or families in which the parents were siblings would be accused of book banning or censorship.

I can already hear the cacophonous howls of indignation from “progressive” ideologues. How dare I compare morally neutral homosexual relationships to immoral polyamorous and incestuous relationships. But that’s the crux of the debate that homosexuals think is settled: Many still believe that homosexual acts are profoundly immoral.  And if homosexual acts are, indeed, objectively immoral, then family structures that center on homosexual couples are inherently morally flawed.

Are picture books that address homosexuality centrally about love?

The problem with picture books on the subject of homosexuality is that they ignore — as they must — the central issue: the morality of homosexual acts. That’s what makes this debate about picture books so dishonest and so dishonorable: In picture books for young children, leftists can’t address the fundamental and abstract question of sexual morality, and, therefore, they get away with saying with feigned wide-eyed innocence, “But this book is just about love.” No, it’s not, and they know it.

Homosexuality, unlike heterosexuality, is constituted by only subjective feelings and volitional acts, which are legitimate objects of moral assessment. The morality of homosexual acts is central to any presentation of homosexuality, and it is the morality of homosexual acts that is intellectually, pedagogically, and developmentally inappropriate in elementary schools.

The Family Book vividly captures the emotive dimensions of families in colorful, whimsical, and appealing illustrations, which makes it all the more troubling. Books like Parr’s lure little ones into an ideological snare before they’re old enough to realize it. It doesn’t matter that Parr in his moral ignorance thinks he’s doing a good thing. His good intentions, shaped as they are by moral delusion, do not mitigate the offense of presenting perversion as positive. Adding sugar to poison doesn’t make it less toxic; it makes it more likely to be consumed.

Should minor positive references to homosexuality get a pass?

And the fact that in his book, the positive images of homosexual families are few, doesn’t justify the inclusion of this book in a public elementary school library. Should libraries include picture books with just one or two positive references to polyamorous families? As I have written earlier, cultural change rarely happens through dramatic, single events, but rather through the slow, accretion of little events that we ignore or dismiss as minor. All that pro-homosexual dogmatists have to do to get their resources into public schools is make sure their references to homosexuality are few and indirect. Once in, they gradually increase the number and directness of homosexuality-affirming messages.

Must bullying prevention efforts include affirming homosexuality?

Of course, homosexual activists are dragging in the bullying issue again as a means to intimidate the Erie administration and school board. They’re making the case that choosing not to include resources that affirm homosexuality will contribute to bullying of students who identify as homosexual or whose caretakers are homosexual.

Should we apply that principle consistently? Will the absence of resources that affirm polyamory contribute to bullying of students who identify as polyamorous or whose caretakers so identify? Will the absence of resources that affirm promiscuity contribute to the bullying of promiscuous students? Will the absence of resources that affirm laziness contribute to the bullying of “slackers”? (Just to be clear to homosexual activists who seem to struggle mightily with analogies: I’m not comparing promiscuity and laziness to homosexuality–homosexual acts are far more serious moral offenses. I’m extrapolating the argument that absence of affirmative resources contributes to bullying to conditions other than homosexuality.) No elementary school librarian, teacher, administrator, or school board member would entertain the fanciful notion of including polyamory-affirming resources in school libraries or curricula as a means to combat the bullying of students being raised by polyamorists.

The homosexual website Chicago Pride reports that a lesbian teacher from Minnesota says that choosing not to include homosexuality-affirming resources in elementary school libraries sends “a strong message that gay and trans issue [sic] are inappropriate to discuss in a classroom setting.” In other words, she believes that it’s important to discuss homosexuality and “transgenderism” in elementary school classrooms. Wow.  We now have educators that believe that it’s important in elementary schools to discuss issues related to the sexual predilections and acts of  1.7 percent of the population.

Is it the responsibility of elementary schools to affirm every family structure or sexual phenomenon?

It’s important is to understand that the mere fact that a particular family structure (or sexual phenomenon) exists does not mean public schools are compelled to teach about or affirm it. It’s tragic that selfish adults deliberately create motherless or fatherless family structures, but schools have neither the obligation nor the right to affirm those immoral structures even in order to make children feel better.

Some questions for this homosexual activist teacher:

• Why should her pedagogical view that controversial topics like homosexuality and gender confusion should be discussed in elementary school classrooms be imposed on every school district?
• What is her defense for the belief that these topics, for which moral considerations are central, are intellectually and developmentally age-appropriate?
• Since she believes that these topics should be discussed in elementary schools, is she willing to have children exposed equally to resources that affirm homosexuality and those that disapprove of it?

GLSEN is quoted as saying that they are “’reaching out’” to the Erie Community Unit School District to “’understand their decision to reject the unanimous decision of a community-based committee in favor of the adoption’” of GLSEN’s Ready, Set, Respect! curricula about which IFI has written.

Questions about curricula selection committees

I wonder who served on this community-based committee. How many people served on it? How were they selected? Did those who formed the committee ensure that all ideological views on homosexuality and its presence in elementary school curricula were represented? How many character development curricula were reviewed? What criteria were used in the selection process? Who established the criteria? Did all members of the committee read all the curricular resources? Did they investigate the biases and controversial history of GLSEN, including that of its founder, Kevin Jennings?

These are some of the questions that should be asked in order to hold accountable those who made the boneheaded decision to use GLSEN resources.

This news story shouldn’t be remarkable, but because we see so few public school administrations and teachers with the wisdom and spine to oppose the efforts of homosexual activists to impose their beliefs on public schools — or infuse curricula with their beliefs — the courage of the Erie Community Unit School District stands out.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to offer words of encouragement and support to the School Board President Charles Brown and Superintendent Bradley Cox, who you can bet your bottom dollar will be on the receiving end of vicious attacks from the advocates of “tolerance.”

Stand With Us

Your support of our work and ministry is always much needed and greatly appreciated. Your promotion of our emails on Facebook, Twitter, your own email network, and prayer for financial support is a huge part of our success in being a strong voice for the pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-family message here in the Land of Lincoln.  Please consider standing with us.

Click here to support Illinois Family Action (IFA). Contributions to IFA are not tax-deductible but give us the most flexibility in engaging critical legislative and political issues.

Click here to support Illinois Family Institute (IFI). Contributions to IFI are tax-deductible and support our educational efforts only.

You can also send a gift to P.O. Box 88848, Carol Stream, IL  60188.

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that President Barack Obama invited the obscene, Christian-hating, homosexual, manboy Dan Savage to the White House. After all, President Obama’s  “Safe School Czar” was the homosexual founder of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), Kevin Jennings; and Obama awarded a Presidential Medal of Freedom posthumously to the infamous homosexual Harvey Milk who was deified in the Hollywood film Milk.

And why am I bringing this up? I’m bringing it up because May 22 is “Harvey Milk Day” in California–yet another abuse of public schools to advance the moral beliefs of homosexuals and their ideological allies. There are few reasons to be thankful to live in Illinois, but this is one: We don’t yet have a law proclaiming a day of commemoration for Harvey Milk in our public schools.

I’m also bringing it up because many have seen or heard of the eponymous film about Harvey Milk and starring Sean Penn but may not know how far from reality the film’s depiction of Milk is.

In 2009, then governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed SB 572 into law. This law, introduced by openly homosexual Senator Mark Leno, designates May 22 “as having special significance in public schools and educational institutions and would encourage those entities to conduct suitable commemorative exercises on that date.”

And why do liberal California lawmakers consider May 22 significant in public schools? They believe that children in grade K-12 should commemorate annually the birthday of the “first openly gay man to be elected to public office in a major city of the United States,” who was murdered by a disgruntled colleague.

The law states that “all public schools and educational institutions are encouraged to observe…and to conduct suitable commemorative exercises as follows: On Harvey Milk Day, exercises remembering the life of Harvey Milk, recognizing his accomplishments, and familiarizing pupils with the contributions he made to this state.”

Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council says this about the man whom Obama and Schwarzenegger think should be honored: “Milk is famous only for winning one election, being murdered – and having sex with men.”

And it wasn’t just adult men with whom Milk had sex. Sprigg recounts that Milk was also fond of teenage boys. In fact, one of his live-in relationships was a pederastic relationship with a 16-year-old boy when Milk was 33.  Yes, I can understand why Obama wanted to honor him and Schwarzenegger thinks children should commemorate him.

According to Daniel Flynn, “the real Harvey Milk was a short-tempered demagogue who cynically invented stories of victimhood to advance his political career.” And contrary to the implication in the film, Milk was not murdered because of his homosexuality, but rather because he was instrumental in preventing a board of supervisors member from regaining his seat.

The most shocking omission from the film and likely from the tall tales California public school teachers tell their young students is that Harvey Milk was a huge supporter of Reverend Jim Jones:

Nine days prior to Milk’s death, more than 900 followers of Jim Jones — many of them campaign workers for Milk — perished in the most ghastly set of murder-suicides in modern history. Before the congregants of the Peoples Temple drank Jim Jones’s deadly Kool-Aid, Harvey Milk and much of San Francisco’s ruling class had already figuratively imbibed. Milk occasionally spoke at Jones’s San Francisco–based headquarters, promoted Jones through his newspaper columns, and defended the Peoples Temple from its growing legion of critics. Jones provided conscripted “volunteers” for Milk’s campaigns to distribute leaflets by the tens of thousands. Milk returned the favor by abusing his position of public trust on behalf of Jones’s criminal endeavors.

“Rev. Jones is widely known in the minority communities here and elsewhere as a man of the highest character, who has undertaken constructive remedies for social problems which have been amazing in their scope and effectiveness,” Supervisor Milk wrote President Jimmy Carter seven months before the Jonestown carnage. The purpose of Milk’s letter was to aid and abet his powerful supporter’s abduction of a six-year-old boy. Milk’s missive to the president prophetically continued: “Not only is the life of a child at stake, who currently has loving and protective parents in the Rev. and Mrs. Jones, but our official relations with Guyana could stand to be jeopardized, to the potentially great embarrassment of our State Department.” John Stoen, the boy whose actual parents Milk libeled to the president as purveyors of “bold-faced lies” and blackmail attempts, perished at Jonestown. This, the only remarkable episode in Milk’s brief tenure on the San Francisco board of supervisors, is swept under the rug by his hagiographers.

This is the man that homosexuals and their allies celebrate and seek to promote as a hero in our taxpayer-subsidized schools. In their effort to exalt Milk as a civil rights hero in public schools to young, naive students,  the truth about him is concealed. There’s even a children’s picture book designed to indoctrinate little ones, titled The Harvey Milk Story. It’s been positively reviewed by Kirkus Reviews and by K.T. Horning, children’s librarian, author, and educator who has served on numerous influential literary boards, and “many book award and evaluation committees, including the American Library Association’s “Rainbow List.”

Public schools are one of the central battlegrounds for the war on moral truth regarding homosexuality. Specious “civil rights” arguments, like the ones promoted by worshippers of Harvey Milk, based on an absurd, untenable comparison of homosexuality to race, and media-fomented hysteria about bullying are driving the exploitation of public education.

Unless and until parents become willing to tell administrators and teachers preemptively that under no circumstances are their children to be exposed to any resources or activities that mention homosexuality or gender confusion, the exploitation will not merely continue, it will increase.

Stand With Us

Your support of our work and ministry is always much needed and greatly appreciated. Your promotion of our emails on Facebook, Twitter, your own email network, and prayer for financial support is a huge part of our success in being a strong voice for the pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-family message here in the Land of Lincoln.

Please consider standing with us by giving a tax-deductible donation HERE, or by sending a gift to P.O. Box 88848, Carol Stream, IL  60188.

On April 20th, in thousands of schools across America, your hard-earned tax dollars will help underwrite the homosexual indoctrination of your kids. Yes, April 20th will mark the annual Day of Silence, described on its website as “a student-led national event that brings attention to anti-LGBT name-calling, bullying and harassment in schools.” As for those who do not support a special school day devoted to gay indoctrination, they are the ones who can expect to be silenced.

Originally the brainchild of some college students in 1996, the Day of Silence has been aggressively promoted for the last 12 years by GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network. (Based on its activities, GLSEN would better be described as the Gay & Lesbian Sexual Education Network.) GLSEN calls on students to remain silent during non-instructional school times on the Day of Silence, thereby standing in solidarity with LGBT youth who are silenced through bullying and harassment.

But don’t some schools already have generic, anti-bullying programs in place along with special, daylong events to highlight the destructive effects of bullying, a subject that should concern all of us? Of course they do, but that’s not enough. GLSEN insists that a special focus must be put on LGBT kids, as if bullying a gay kid was worse than bullying a fat kid.

But there’s more that takes place on the Day of Silence: A pro-homosexuality message is often sent to the students, with teachers and administrators frequently promoting homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgenderism over the course of the day. That’s why thousands of schools (and not just students) officially participate in the event, with the explicit backing of GLSEN. What about other messages being introduced during the day to balance the discussion? Perish the thought.

Just ask PFOX (Parents and Friends of ExGays and Gays), which announced its intention to hand out literature on the Day of Silence. According to PFOX president Greg Quinlan, “PFOX is calling on students to distribute flyers promoting acceptance of ex-gays. Former homosexuals and their supporters are ridiculed and forced to live in silence. Our nation’s schools deny students with unwanted same-sex attractions any support or fact-based information that feelings can and do change.”

How was this announcement welcomed? According to one gay journalist, “the fact that they are attempting to sneak in their harmful message on the Day of Silence, a day which is supposed to show support for those who are forced into silence by outside pressures, shows just how deceptive their message truly is.”

How dare they introduce their message on the Day of Silence! As expressed in 2004 by gay activist Kevin Jennings, founder of GLSEN and most recently President Obama’s Safe School Czar, “Ex-gay messages have no place in our nation’s public schools. A line has been drawn. There is no ‘other side’ when you’re talking about lesbian, gay and bisexual students.” Ah yes, the voice of tolerance speaks once again.

What about the Day of Dialogue, sponsored by the evangelical Christian organization Focus on the Family, and scheduled this year for April 19th, the day before the Day of Silence? This event encourages “student-initiated conversations about the fact that God cares about our lives, our relationships and our sexuality. . . . [Jesus’] example calls us to stand up for those being harmed or bullied while offering the light of what God’s word says.”

Surely this event will be welcomed, right? Not a chance. As expressed by a professing Christian woman with a self-described “hair-trigger sensitivity for the protection of LGBT youth,” the Day of Dialogue has something “very rotten” at its core. She writes (on LGBTQNATION.com), “Allowing Focus on the Family to export their historical and counter-productive sacred discrimination of the LGBT community to Christian youth is a mistake.” To repeat the words of Kevin Jennings, “There is no ‘other side’ when you’re talking about lesbian, gay and bisexual students.”

Last week an elementary school teacher from Florida called into my radio program, identifying himself as a black male but not wanting to give any specifics about the grade he taught at school. He was concerned that his job could be in jeopardy if he dared speak out against the Day of Silence. (Other elementary school teachers have told me privately that they dare not speak out against the overt homosexual activism they see on a regular basis in their schools – remember, we’re talking about elementary schools – for fear of losing their jobs.)

Although the Day of Silence had not yet been introduced to this gentleman’s school in Florida, the faculty members were discussing strategies for its future implementation, with explicit instructions to present this as a civil rights issue. (Needless to say, this black American also did not approve of equating gay activism with the civil rights movement.) And what should the teacher do if a student raised a religious or moral objection to homosexuality? The conversation, he was told, should immediately be turned back to gay civil rights, and no religious or moral objections should be entertained.

Yes, the Day of Silence has become the Day of Silencing – unless parents and educators and students determine to let their voices be heard. Now would be a good time to start.

Beware of the schoolyard – jihad, not so much

When I was a kid, I got bullied fairly frequently because I was short. So my parents enrolled me in a judo class. After a few unexpected flips in the hallways, the bullies left me alone. Confronting bullies helps build character.

There are times, of course, when judo won’t work and the best strategy is to avoid the jerks or sic a teacher or principal on them. Almost everybody has a story. But now, bullying has become a federal issue.

Rep. Jackie Speier is on a crusade to use the U.S. government to stamp out bullying in America. The Northern California Democrat wants to deny federal funds to schools that won’t keep a tally of bullying incidents against special-needs children. In other words, the federal government is going to whip local schools into line using its vast fiscal powers. It’s a politically correct form of bullying. To oppose this abuse of power implies you actually want these poor kids to be harassed.

I’m not sure where the Constitution legitimates such a sweeping directive, but it’s probably in one of the penumbras emanating from the Preamble’s General Welfare Clause. Once you create giant Washington bureaucracies, you can use the clause to justify almost anything – from forcing poison light bulbs down our throats to dictating schoolyard behavior.

Every so often, this power is put to good purpose, as when Sen. Jesse Helms used a similar threat to prevent schools from kicking out the Boy Scouts. But he was defending the Scouts’ constitutional rights, not creating a vehicle for social engineering. The real solution is to get rid of the oxymoronic Department of Education, not to empower this Jimmy Carter creation in hopes of advancing conservative ideals. It creates too many bullies.

Ms. Speier’s new school-bullying idea mirrors President Obama’s recent interest in the subject. On March 10, he held an “anti-bullying” conference at the White House. Besides “safe schools czar” Kevin Jennings, invitees included anti-Christian homosexual activist Dan Savage, who attained some fame in 2000 for claiming to have licked the doorknobs of pro-family Republican candidate Gary Bauer’s office in hopes of giving Mr. Bauer the flu. Now that’s the kind of participant we should have at every anti-bullying conference, if only as a role model.

As Illinois Family Institute writer Laurie Higgins relates, “Savage said the conference was ‘of tremendous symbolic importance’ but also complained, ‘What was never addressed is when the parents are the bullies.'”

Coming next: federal mandates for “parent education”?

The government, under the auspices of three federal agencies, has created a website dedicated to ending bullying. Paraphrasing Mrs. Higgins, here’s the site’s underlying philosophy: 1) Homosexual behavior is equivalent to race, 2) any kind of sex is morally positive, and 3) expressing any conservative moral beliefs leads to bullying. What a neat formula for suppressing dissent.

Speaking of bullying, Ms. Speier was in rare form along with other Democrats on March 10 at Rep. Peter King’s Homeland Security Committee’s hearing on radicalization of U.S. Muslims.

She rebuked the committee for focusing on Islamic terror instead of expanding it to “Christian” terrorist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan or the violent anti-abortion group Army of God, and she assailed some witnesses.

Melvin Bledsoe, whose son Carlos was recruited into Islam and has been charged with murdering one soldier and wounding another on June 1, 2009, at a U.S. military recruiting center in Arkansas, was having none of it. He shot back:

“I’m wondering how did [the lawmakers] get on the commission to speak about some of the things they’re speaking about.” As for radical Muslims, he added, “We’re worried about stepping on their toes, and they’re talking about stamping us out.”

The day before the hearing, Ms. Speier laid into Mr. King, calling him a racist.

“This is one member’s bias that he is now putting forth as the policy of this country, and there are going to be many of us who will shout out and call him out on abusing his role as chair and abusing the Congress of the United States for whatever his personal bias is,” Ms. Speier told the San Francisco Chronicle. “To pinpoint Muslims as if they’re the only category – it’s wrong, it’s discriminatory, it’s racist and inappropriate.”

Then she delivered this non sequitur: “Hearings aren’t supposed to be judged before they’re held. They’re supposed to be illuminating.”

Say what? Well, as an editor friend of mine often said, “Why does everything have to make sense?”

Given Ms. Speier’s fiery demeanor toward anyone who conveys the idea that radical Islam is more of a threat than, say, a Baptist ladies knitting club, it’s no wonder Los Angeles County Sheriff Leroy D. Baca almost fell over himself praising Islam as a religion of peace and unloading nuggets like this:

“The Muslim community is no less or no more important than others, as no one can predict with complete accuracy who and what will pose the next threat against our nation.”

As I said, watch out for those ladies and their knitting needles. OK, that’s not fair. Ms. Speier and Sheriff Baca were talking about groups that actually commit violence. But given the threat we face, the moral equivalence is still stunning.

Another witness Ms. Speier bullied was moderate Muslim Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, chairman of the American Islamic Forum, who at considerable personal risk warned the committee that most Americans are unaware of the extent of homegrown Muslim extremism.

Ms. Speier questioned Dr. Jasser’s right to speak for Muslims and noted that although she attended a Catholic church every Sunday, she herself would not be qualified to address the church’s pedophile priest scandal. Yes, she said that. You can’t make this stuff up. Liberals will outdo your wildest stereotypes.

In the space of a few minutes, Ms. Speier trashed her own church, assailed brave witnesses and committed moral equivalence by invoking “Christian” terrorism as if it were as big a threat to America as the ongoing jihad.

She probably means well. Bullies are bad business. And perhaps she is well-qualified to take on the school bullying issue. It takes one – well, you know the rest.

Some may remember the scene from the film Moonstruck in which Cher slaps Nicholas Cage upside the head and yells “Snap out of it.” Somebody better slap the conservative community upside its collective head before the federal government spends all its time cooing at homosexuality.

Recently, the lovestruck Department of Justice, White House, and Congress have wasted valuable time and public resources servicing homosexual activists via a White House conference, a Department of Justice video, and three proposed bills.

Last week, President Barack Obama held an “anti-bullying” (nudge nudge, wink wink) conference at the White House to which he invited the infamous homosexual “safe schools” czar Kevin Jennings; openly homosexual Fort Worth city councilman Joel Burns; the 16-year-old executive direct of Gays and Lesbians United Against Discrimination; at least two representatives from the Gay, Lesbian and Straight “Education” Network; someone from the Human Rights Campaign; someone from the National Center for Transgender Equality; and someone from the Trevor Project.

The White House also invited the foul-mouthed, anti-Christian homosexual activist Dan Savage, creator of the “It Gets Better” project. Savage said the conference was “of tremendous symbolic importance,” but also complained that “What was never addressed is when the parents are the bullies.” Someone should ascertain exactly what Savage views as parental “bullying.”

The government has created a website dedicated to ending bullying, a noble mission concealing an ignoble ultimate goal and troubling underlying philosophy. The underlying philosophy includes three central assumptions: 1. Homosexuality is equivalent to race, 2. Homosexuality is morally positive, and 3. The expression of conservative moral beliefs constitutes illegitimately discriminatory speech, which contributes to bullying.

The ultimate goal is the eradication of conservative moral beliefs and the creation of a social and legal climate that make it impossible for them to be expressed. For those who have eyes to see, the website offers clues to this goal and philosophy.

There are three image links at the bottom of the homepage: one is a link to information on cyberbullying; one is a link to information on the White House Conference; and one is a link to information on “LGBT Bullying.” Remarkable. Of all the conditions for which students may be bullied, there’s a special image link and section dedicated to only two: homosexuality and “transgenderism” (more accurately, Gender Identity Disorder). Not one other disorder gets special attention — not attention deficit disorder, not attention deficit hyper activity disorder, not Asperger’s Syndrome.

And homosexuality and “transgenderism” are the only conditions constituted by subjective feelings and volitional acts that many consider immoral that get special attention. Promiscuous students and drug-users, for example, are often bullied. Why don’t those conditions get image links to their own special sections?

This Obama administration effort follows close on the heels of a pinheaded and inappropriate decision by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to create a video for Dan Savage’s “It Gets Better” project. Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Thomas Perez showed the DOJ video to public high school students in Silver Spring, Maryland. Here are a few of the comments made by DOJ employees, most of whom identify as homosexual, in their roles as government employees:

• “Being different is cool.”
• “Don’t be ashamed of who you are. Keep being yourself.”
• “If I knew when I was eight that the thing that was causing me so much pain… would actually define me in a way that makes me very, very proud, I would get through it.”

These should be shocking comments to hear in a publicly funded project of the federal government. The federal government has made the astonishing public claims that homosexuality is “cool”; that no one should be ashamed of homosexuality; and that homosexuality should be a source of pride. The individuals who appear in this video are, of course, entitled to their own non-factual ontological and moral beliefs. In their roles as government employees, however, they have no right to promote those unproven, subjective, non-factual beliefs.

This video should be a public scandal. Imagine if philosophically conservative government employees appeared in a publicly funded video in their professional roles, saying that it is not cool to engage in homosexual acts; that homosexual acts are shameful; and that homosexuality is not something of which to be proud.

It is objectively true that no one should be bullied. It is not objectively true that homosexuality is cool; that people should keep living a homosexual life; or that homosexuality is worthy of pride or respect. No employee of the government acting in their official position has any right to promote those arguable moral beliefs.

At the conclusion of the high school propaganda session, likely held during Mr. Perez’s working hours, students were invited to sign the “It Gets Better” pledge, the first sentence of which states, “Everyone deserves to be respected for who they are.” A feckless statement, but oh so persuasive with non-thinking people. The statement suggests without stating that those who identify as homosexual should be respected for their homosexuality. That is a moral proposition which is widely rejected and which no representative of the government has any right to promote in their professional role.

Everyone deserves to be respected because they’re human beings created in the likeness of God. It should be obvious, however, that not every subjective feeling or behavioral choice is worthy of respect. Humans deserve to be respected for their humanness in spite of their disordered inclinations and immoral volitional acts.

But it’s not just the executive branch that’s dancing to GLSEN’s gay tunes. Our homosexuality-affirming legislators have been busy little bees of late, including our very own junior U.S. Senator, Mark Kirk. The technically Republican Kirk, who has a special fondness for all pro-homosexual legislation, has joined 18 Democratic senators and one independent to introduce the Senate version of the Safe Schools Improvement Act — S. 506, which will deny elementary, middle, and high schools federal funds to combat drugs and violence unless they also agree to explicitly address homosexuality and transgenderism.

Openly homosexual U.S. Representative Jared Polis (D-CO) and comedian U.S. Senator Al Franken (D-MN) have re-introduced their recently moribund Student Non-Discrimination Act (SNDA) bill — H.R. 998. According to the Human Rights Campaign, this act “would prevent schools from discriminating against students because of the actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity of a person with whom that student associates or has associated.” If passed, SNDA will be used to censor any resources that express the view that volitional homosexual acts are not moral acts.

The Human Rights Campaign makes the amusing claim that SNDA has “broad support.” Here are the organizations that they offer as evidence of breadth of support:

SNDA is has broad support from over 33 national organizations, including: The American Association of University Women, American Federation of Teachers, American Civil Liberties Union, American Psychological Association, American School Counselor Association, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Family Equality Council, Gay-Straight Alliance Network, GLAD (Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders), GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network), Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of School Safety and Law Enforcement Officials, National Association of Secondary School Principals, National Center for Transgender Equality, National Council of Jewish Women, National Council of La Raza, National Education Association, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund, National Women’s Law Center, PFLAG (Parents, Families, & Friends of Lesbians and Gays), People for the American Way, SAVE (Suicide Awareness Voices of Education), School Social Work Association of America, The Trevor Project and Transgender Law Center.

But that’s not all, two New Jersey lawmakers have recently reintroduced the troubling “Tyler Clementi Higher Education Anti-Harassment Act,” which will require colleges and universities that receive federal funds to add “sexual orientation” to their anti-discrimination policies, and asks for a “$250 million grant program to help schools form or expand campus anti-bullying programs.” The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is repeating its warning about the dangers this bill poses to First Amendment rights.

And if our busy legislative bees fail in these efforts to pollinate our schools with their unproven, unstated ontological and moral propositions on homosexuality and Gender Identity Disorder, it is reported that they will simply hide their dubious pieces of legislation in the Elementary and Secondary School Act, which is “the key federal statute governing primary and secondary education.”

When will our ideologically askew and overreaching administration compel Americans to abandon their cowardly, unilateral “truce” on the “social issues”? C’mon, conservatives, snap out of it!

Take ACTION: Contact your federal elected representatives and tell them not to support any legislation or taxpayer subsidized efforts that espouse either implicitly or explicitly the following ideas: that homosexuality is normative, good, a source of pride, ontologically analogous to race, or morally equivalent to heterosexuality. Such ideas are non-factual, unproven, controversial assumptions. No arm of the government has any business using public money to advance them.

Support IFI’s Division of School Advocacy!

Would you prayerfully consider pledging a monthly gift of $25 or more to support this important division of IFI? A promise of this kind will help us form a strategic plan that budgetary constraints often makes impossible. Would you consider giving a tax-deductible gift to support our work? 

Click HERE to donate today! IFI is supported by voluntary donations from individuals like you across the state of Illinois.

Donations to IFI are tax-deductible.

Editor’s Note: IFI requested comments or clarifications on the AOL article from Focus on the Family. They did not respond.

There has been much speculation about why James Dobson left Focus on the Family (FOTF). The speculation is that he was, in effect, forced out because some in leadership hope to create a kindler, gentler face for FOTF, which seems strange in that it’s hard to imagine someone kindler or gentler than James Dobson.

Pastor Ken Hutcherson writes that “Focus does have a new focus; an image change designed to make them accepted and well-liked rather than standing for righteousness in an unrighteous society.”

A recent AOL article about the shift in leadership at FOTF, although not providing proof for those rumors, does suggest they may be true.

James Dobson’s replacement Jim Daly said:

“When you look back from a pro-life perspective, what were the gains there?…We don’t see the results for the energy, the money, everything else that’s been poured into the political sphere.”

Daly is simply wrong in his assertion that the pro-life position has seen little or no gains. Because of the perseverance of pro-life warriors, polls show that there has been significant decline in support for the anti-life position, particularly among the younger generation.

Daly also said:

“We as a Christian community need to refocus a bit on what’s important in the culture. For us, it’s family. That’s our mission….I don’t know what will happen with same-sex marriage, but I’m not going to be discouraged if we lose some of those battles, [for] 98 percent of people, traditional marriage will remain relevant.”

This statement reveals a rather surprising naivete. Perhaps Mr. Daly hasn’t read any of the research done by Stanley Kurtz who found that when “same-sex marriage” was legalized in Scandinavia, heterosexual investment in traditional marriage declined. This makes sense. Legalized “same-sex marriage” embodies and promotes the radical and subversive ideas that marriage has no intrinsic connection to heterosexuality and no intrinsic connection to procreation, so why should 98 percent of the population find an institution that is unrelated to heterosexuality and unrelated to procreation relevant? Why should those who do not hold orthodox Jewish, Muslim, or Christian views find traditional marriage relevant?

If the family is FOTF’s mission, then they better figure out how to stop the pro-homosexual juggernaut — nicely, of course — because soon every child from kindergarten through high school will be taught about “diverse family structures” and Heather’s two nice mommies.

What FOTF needs to bear in mind is that while it’s easy for the pro-life position to be advanced through emotional appeals to the heart like the Tim Tebow ad that aired during the Super Bowl, it’s very difficult for the pro-traditional marriage and anti-homosexuality position to do that. The other side has the clear narrative advantage. It’s much easier to create a touching film about a little boy with two mommies or a picture book about cute furry homosexual animals than it is to create heartstring-tugging picture books and films that show the immorality and societal devastation of homosexual practice and “same-sex marriage.”

We live, and move, and have our being in a culture that Neil Postman described as a place where “imagery, narrative, presentness, simultaneity, intimacy, immediate gratification, and quick emotional response” reign supreme and where “logic, sequence, history, exposition, objectivity, detachment, and discipline” resonate little. This means that those who can create compelling stories that pack an emotional punch will win the hearts and minds of Americans. Those who must rely on logic, exposition, and objectivity are at a distinct polemical disadvantage.

As evidence for his claim that a kindler, gentler approach to cultural issues is more effective, Daly claimed that the soft Tebow ad was a “game changer.” What a Barna poll showed was that of those who believe abortion should be legal, 4 percent said the commercial was cause for them to reconsider their opinion about abortion. Oddly, the poll also showed that the ad caused 8 percent of those who believe abortion should not be legal to reconsider their opinion on abortion.

Methinks Mr. Daly overstates the case, but perhaps the ad will be a “game changer.” If so, then FOTF should make a slick and soft game-changing ad about homosexuality.

For the most part the church has long adopted the soft, “We heart homosexuality” approach, dribbling virtually no energy or money into the political sphere, and we see the effects: even as the younger generation of Christians moves to an anti-abortion position, they have moved to a love the sinnerand the sin position on homosexuality.

Mr. Daly also said “I will continue to defend traditional marriage, but I’m not going to demean human beings for (sic) the process.” To whom exactly is Jim Daly alluding? James Dobson? Or is he referring to those relatively few stalwart culture warriors who are willing to endure the malignant lies and obscene epithets that a courageous stand for truth in the public square on this issue elicits? The language employed by Mr. Daly here is the kind of language commonly employed by either homosexualists (i.e., homosexuals and those who support their ontological, moral, and political views) or by those Christians who are unwilling to publicly condemn volitional homosexual practice as immoral, even as our public schools affirm homosexuality to children with public money.

Who defines “demeaning” for FOTF? That’s a critical question because those who affirm a homosexual identity believe that public statements about the immorality of volitional homosexual acts are demeaning. And those who support legalized “same-sex marriage” believe that moral opposition to it is demeaning. If FOTF allows the culture to define what is demeaning, then silence is their only option.

Moving forward, how will FOTF oppose “homosexual marriage”?

How will FOTF oppose the widespread cultural embrace of specious ideas about the nature and morality of homosexuality, even among Christians?

How will FOTF work to stop the exposure of elementary, middle, and high school students in public schools to homosexuality-affirming resources disguised as “anti-bullying” resources?

Mr. Daly rejects being “highly confrontational,” a commitment with which I would wholeheartedly agree — depending on how “confrontational” is defined. If Daly means that he seeks to confront the culture, but without hostility, his goal is admirable. If, on the other hand, he is rejecting not just hostility but also cultural confrontations, then there’s a problem. To confront means to defy or come up against, which is what will be required if we hope to protect the unborn, children, the family, speech rights, religious liberty, and truth.

Shouldn’t we boldly confront the efforts of homosexualists who are working feverishly to expose our littlest ones to homosexuality and “transgenderism” in our public schools? How perverse does the behavior that our public schools affirm have to become and how young the children to whom and in whom it’s affirmed before the church as well as para-church organizations will become willing to confront the unproven, corrupt ideas promoted in public schools?

It certainly has not been any mythical confrontational tactics of serious orthodox Christians that have rendered our Christian youth vulnerable to the specious secular arguments used to normalize homosexuality. Here’s what has led the body of Christ, including our youth, to respect and affirm heresy:

• The cowardice and ignorance of the church which results in a retreat from the public square
• The successful infiltration of homosexual activism in public education through critical pedagogy, Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN)and its satellite Illinois Safe Schools Alliance, the National Education Association, the American Library Association, schools or departments of education that are dominated by “progressives” who train teachers, the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “educational” project ironically named “Teaching Tolerance,” and numerous “anti-bullying” curricula and resources
• Hollywood that uses the powerful media of television and film to transform cultural views by idealizing homosexuality and ridiculing traditional views of sexuality without ever having to make a well-supported argument. Hollywood knows that if there’s one thing Americans hate, it’s being uncool.
• Judicial activism
• The biased mainstream news media that celebrates homosexuality through sound bites and imagery
• Advertising that uses imagery to glamorize homosexuality

Far too many churches and para-church organizations are adopting emasculated approaches to the pro-homosexual movement. Not only are we not pro-active in preparing our youth intellectually to understand the specious secular arguments used to normalize homosexuality, but we’re not even sufficiently re-active.

Just when the cultural threat is greatest; when Obama has appointed lesbian law professor Chai Feldblum to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; when he has appointed Kevin Jennings, homosexual founder of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network to be the Safe Schools “czar”; when the “Hate Crimes” bill has passed Congress; when the Employment Non-Discrimination Act is soon up for a vote; when the Student Non-Discrimination Act has been proposed; when the Safe Schools Improvement Act has been proposed; and when efforts to eradicate marriage continue unabated, we need warriors who are willing to confront lies and protect children.

Let’s hope and pray that Focus on the Family continues to lead courageously, perseveringly, and unambiguously on the critical cultural issues pertaining to life, family, and marriage.

Kathleen Parker is the “conservative” columnist liberals can count on to bash conservative personalities and causes. This is why her column is syndicated by the Washington Post and why she is featured on the Chris Matthews show.

Now, Parker has done her best imitation of lesbian MSNBC-TV commentator Rachel Maddow by writing a column bashing Uganda’s Christian majority for considering passage of a bill to toughen laws against homosexuality. This has been a Maddow cause for months, and Parker is now on the bandwagon.

When the MSNBC-TV host isn’t attacking Christians here and abroad for opposing homosexuality, she is promoting homosexuality in the U.S. military, as Post media critic Howard Kurtz was recently forced to acknowledge in a story about her preoccupation with this matter. But it’s really not surprising. Maddow’s show is an extension of her lesbian lifestyle. She is gay and proud and given free rein at MSNBC because of her role as the first “out” lesbian to host a show on a national cable news network.

It’s another “first” for the homosexual lobby and the media, which seem to go together.

Parker’s interest in the issue is not as clear but it may stem from her eagerness to please those who syndicate her column and quote her approvingly in the liberal press. This is how “conservatives” become mainstream media stars. However, her column is even worse in its accusations and charges than what we can find in the hysterical gay press. Parker finds those Christians opposed to homosexuality in Uganda and who base their opposition on the Bible to be in favor of “genocide.”

Losing complete control of her senses, Parker states that a proposed law against homosexuality constitutes “state genocide of a minority [that] is proposed in the name of Christianity…”

Once again, as we have documented on so many occasions, the death penalty in the bill is only one provision and is for “aggravated homosexuality” or serious crimes mostly involving homosexual behavior targeting children and spreading disease and death.

The potential genocide in Uganda is the AIDS epidemic that the government and Christian leaders are successfully combating. They understand, although Parker apparently does not, that homosexual behavior promotes the spread of AIDS.

There is a myth that AIDS in Africa has been spread exclusively through heterosexual conduct. But the internationally acclaimed medical journal The Lancet last August published the first scientific study showing that male homosexuals are more often than not infected with HIV than the general adult population in sub-Saharan Africa. The study is titled, “Men who have sex with men and HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa.”

Here, all of this is out in the open and well-known. Indeed, the Cato Institute held an event on Wednesday in which HIV-positive writer Andrew Sullivan strode to the podium during a conference on “gay conservatives” with ashes on his forehead from having attended a Catholic Church Ash Wednesday service. Sullivan was caught soliciting a partner for dangerous “bare-backing” sexual practices and has since “married” another man. This is “conservative?”

Like Kathleen Parker, he is still considered a “conservative” by some and was introduced by Cato executive David Boaz, a member of the Independent Gay Forum and pro-marijuana activist. Like Sullivan, Cato is also misleadingly described in the media as “conservative” too many times to mention.

Today, as the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) gets underway in Washington, D.C., participants will find a literature table established under official CPAC auspices from a homosexual Republican group calling itself GOProud. CPAC organizer David Keene, whose lobbying activities have been an embarrassment to the conservative movement, approved letting the gay rights organization officially attend the conference, despite complaints from traditional conservative groups such as Catholic Families for America.

Talk of tolerance and diversity aside, male homosexuals constitute most of the HIV-AIDS cases and they are still prohibited from donating blood because of their propensity to come down with various life-threatening diseases. Facts are facts. But don’t expect to see this information analyzed and reviewed by the mainstream media when considering such issues as allowing active and open homosexuals into the Armed Forces and into close quarters with normal heterosexuals.

Gay activists complain that thousands have been forced out of the military because of their homosexuality. The evidence, in the form of opinion polls and letters from former military officers, suggests that many thousands more will leave if the military brass force acceptance of homosexuality-and the diversity training that will inevitably go along with it-on the military rank and file.

The purpose of the Ugandan bill, quite clearly, is to keep homosexuality in the closet, where it used to be in this country. The country’s literal survival may depend on passage of this legislation, after it undergoes hearings and some revisions.

The bill will likely have more of a deterrent effect than anything else. Some of the controversial passages, such as restrictions on “touching,” are included for the purpose of defining homosexual behavior. It may sound strange to Americans who are accustomed to in-your-face homosexuality on national television and almost everywhere else in society, but Uganda is serious about avoiding a return to the time when a notorious homosexual king was ruling the country and tortured and killed young Christian men who resisted his homosexual advances.

Ironically, Parker makes reference to this terrible period, but only to contrast it with a frightening future in which she speculates that gays will be offered up by authorities in Uganda as martyrs for the gay rights cause. To drive the point home, a gay rights group recently held a news conference in Washington, D.C. featuring an alleged gay rights activist from Uganda wearing a paper sack over his head. It was a good publicity stunt, designed to generate sympathy and attention for people who only want the “right” to celebrate a behavior that is a documented public health hazard.

Hedge fund manager George Soros, who is behind the campaign to homosexualize Uganda, doesn’t wear a bag over his face and doesn’t need to. He operates mostly out in the open, in the name of promoting his version of an “open society” here and abroad. The problem is that most of the liberal media agree with his policies and proposals and therefore don’t shed light on what he is doing in terms of interfering in the affairs of not only the U.S. but other nations of the world.

In fact, the Ugandan legislation seems designed to send a message to Soros and his minions in the foreign homosexual lobby to keep their hands off Uganda’s families and kids. Soros funds efforts to legalize homosexual behavior and prostitution in Uganda and other African nations. It’s too bad Parker didn’t notice and condemn that. But such a reference might provoke criticism from the left, and she wants to avoid that so she can keep going on the Matthews show.

The eminent historian Paul Johnson, who was recently on C-SPAN taking questions from viewers, has something to say about this. His book The Quest for God  laments that Western society made a huge mistake by decriminalizing homosexuality and thinking that acceptance of the lifestyle on a basic level would satisfy its practitioners. Instead, he wrote, “Decriminalization made it possible for homosexuals to organize openly into a powerful lobby, and it thus became a mere platform from which further demands were launched.” It became, he says, a “monster in our midst, powerful and clamoring, flexing its muscles, threatening, vengeful and vindictive towards anyone who challenges its outrageous claims, and bent on making fundamental-and to most of us horrifying-changes to civilized patterns of sexual behavior.”

Today, this monster makes even more demands and inroads, especially into our government, as President Obama appoints subversives such as homosexual activist Kevin Jennings to the Education Department, and some poor mixed-up “transgendered” person to a post at Commerce. Plus, adding to our health care problems, he has lifted the ban on AIDS-infected foreigners from traveling to and living in the U.S.

His gays-in-the-military proposal would not only make the Armed Forces a laughingstock but would end its value as a fighting force capable of defending us against foreign threats. Indeed, a homosexualized military could itself become a threat, just like it was in the Nazi period.

Instead of finding a “monster” in a gay rights movement that wants to impose itself on all of us, including our children in the schools, Kathleen Parker finds the monster to be the Christians in Uganda who want to spare their children from a lifestyle that too frequently ends in premature death. She accuses them of “genocide” for being patriots and good parents. Shame on her.

Parker’s “conservatism” is a farce and a fraud. But it seems to be in fashion at CPAC this year.